Search

Sodium propionate is authorised containing at least 98.5% of sodium propionate. The applicants requested for the renewal of the authorisation of sodium propionate when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of sodium propionate under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Considering the user safety, the additive is corrosive to skin, eyes and respiratory tract, but is not a skin sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 16680 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as an eye irritant and a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use with all fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. coryniformis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Loigolactobacillus coryniformis DSM 34345 has the potential to improve the production of silages prepared from all fresh plant materials at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Apium graveolens L. (celery seed oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel concluded that the use of celery seed oil is of no concern up to the following concentrations in complete feed: 1.6 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 2.3 mg/kg for laying hens, 2.1 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 2.8 mg/kg for piglets, 3.3 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 4.1 mg/kg for sows, 6.5 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 6.2 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses, 4.0 mg/kg for dairy cows, 2.5 mg/kg for rabbits, 6.8 mg/kg for salmonids and 7.2 mg/kg for dogs. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For cats, ornamental fish and other species, no conclusion can be drawn. The use of celery seed oil in animals feed is not expected to pose concern for the consumers and for the environment. The additive under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a respiratory and skin sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to perillaldehyde and bergapten may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since A. graveolens and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of liquid l‐lysine base produced with a genetically modified strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The l‐lysine base liquid produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B‐67535 and NRRL B‐67439 is currently authorised as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The present application is aimed at modifying the current authorisation to include C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 as a production strain. The new production strain qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety approach when used for production purposes. It was unambiguously identified as C. glutamicum and was shown not to harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants for antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. All the introduced sequences or mutations were considered to be safe, and no viable cells or DNA of the NRRL B‐68248 strain was detected in the final product. Therefore, the final product does not pose any safety concern associated with the production strain. l‐Lysine base produced using C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 does not represent a risk for the target species, the consumer or the environment. The additive was considered to be neither irritant to skin or the eyes, nor a dermal sensitiser. l‐Lysine base produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 is considered to be an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐lysine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. lactis is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactococcus lactis DSM 34262 has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 30–35% at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Carum carvi L. (caraway oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) Panel concluded that the use of caraway oil is of no concern up to the following concentrations in complete feed: 9 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 13 mg/kg for laying hens, 12 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 16 mg/kg for piglets, 19 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 24 mg/kg for sows, 35 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 11 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, 10 mg/kg for dairy cows, sheep, goats, horses and rabbits, 25 mg/kg for salmonids and dogs. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For cats, ornamental fish and other species, no conclusion can be drawn. The use of caraway oil in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use is safe for the consumer and the environment. The additive under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a respiratory and skin sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to perillaldehyde may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since C. carvi and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 when used as a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh plant material. The additive is intended for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh plant material for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 108 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh plant material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain was established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance genes of concern were detected. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for all the animal species, for consumers of products from animals fed the treated silage and for the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive containing Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 should be considered as a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. One preparation was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. However, the Panel cannot assess the irritation potential of other possible preparations. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 34271 has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silage prepared from fresh plant material with a DM range of 30%–35% at a minimum concentration of 1 × 108 CFU/kg fresh material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of sepiolite as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In 2022, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) delivered an Opinion on the safety and efficacy of the same additive. The Panel concluded that sepiolite used as a feed additive is safe for the consumers and the environment, and efficacious as a thickener‐suspending agent, binder and anticaking agent in feed for all animal species under the proposed conditions of use. The additive was not considered an eye or skin irritant. However, it was considered a respiratory irritant, a respiratory and dermal sensitiser; owing to the dusting potential and its silica content, the additive was considered a risk by inhalation. Regarding the target species, in the previous Opinion, the Panel concluded on the safety of the additive for dairy ruminants. However, no conclusion could be drawn for all other species/categories. Based on the tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, weaned piglets and trout evaluated in the current assessment, and the one in dairy cows previously assessed, the Panel concluded that the inclusion of sepiolite at the maximum recommended level of 20,000 mg/kg complete feed is safe for all animal species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of l‐tyrosine as a nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in all animal species (3c401). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition remains safe for the target species, consumers, and the environment. As regards the safety for the user, l‐tyrosine is not an irritant to skin or eyes. In the absence of data, the potential of l‐tyrosine to be a dermal and respiratory sensitiser cannot be excluded. Exposure by inhalation of persons handling the additive is likely. The present application for renewal of the authorisation does not include any modification proposal that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive and, therefore, there is no need for re‐assessing the efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additives, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide is safe, when added to sodium chloride at a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg for turkeys for fattening and laying hens and other laying/breeding birds, all porcine species and categories, all ruminant species and categories, rabbits, horses, salmonids and other minor fin fish, dogs and cats. However, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additives for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding other than turkeys, and for all species/categories other than the above listed. In the current assessment, the applicant is proposing a maximum content of 60 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride for chickens for fattening and other poultry species (except turkeys) for fattening or reared for laying/breeding and for all species/categories other than the listed above. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide are safe at a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride for: turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, laying hens and other laying/breeding birds, all porcine species, all ruminant species, rabbits, equines, salmonids and minor fin fish, dogs and cats. The Panel concluded also that a maximum content of 60 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride is safe for chickens for fattening and minor poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding and all other animal species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the characterisation of the feed additive consisting of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) produced by fermentation with Ensifer adhaerens (CGMCC 19596). The additive is intended to be used as a nutritional additive for all animal species. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the characterisation of the production strain, due to uncertainties on whether the production strain E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 was genetically modified. However, since viable cells and DNA were not detected in the product, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin), produced with E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 would not raise safety concerns as regards the production strain. In the present submission, the applicant provided supplementary information regarding the origin and history of modifications of the strain. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded on the characterisation of the production strain E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596, which can be considered not to be genetically modified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the wood of Juniperus deppeana Steud. (cedarwood Texas oil), when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the essential oil under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 15 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep, goats, horses, dogs, salmonids and ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed were 5 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 8 mg/kg for laying hens, 7 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 10 mg/kg for piglets, 12 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 14 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 8.5 mg/kg for rabbits and 4 mg/kg for cats. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 4 mg/kg complete feed. The use of cedarwood Texas oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Since the individual components of cedarwood Texas oil are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of tinctures obtained from the dried leaves of Ginkgo biloba L. (ginkgo tinctures) when used as sensory additives. The tinctures are water/ethanol solutions with a dry matter content of 5.7% (tincture A) and 3.0% (tincture B). The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additives under assessment are safe for the target species at the following concentrations in complete feed: (i) ginkgo tincture A at 240 mg/kg for horses and 750 mg/kg for dogs; (ii) ginkgo tincture B at 600 mg/kg for horses and 50 mg/kg for all other animal species. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of ginkgo tinctures up to the maximum proposed use level in feed for the target species. The tinctures should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes, and as dermal and respiratory sensitisers. The use of ginkgo tinctures at the proposed use levels in feed for the target species is not considered to be a risk to the environment. While the available data indicate that Ginkgo preparations have a distinctive flavour profile, there is no evidence that ginkgo tinctures would impart flavour to a food or feed matrix. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of l‐cystine as nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in all animal species (3c391). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition remains safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. As regards the safety for the user, l‐cystine is not an irritant to skin or eyes and is not a skin sensitiser. Exposure by inhalation of persons handling the additive cannot be excluded. The present application for the renewal of the authorisation does not include any modification proposal that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive and therefore there is no need for reassessing the efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application of renewal of Limosilactobacillus fermentum NCIMB 30169 as a technological feed additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei ATCC PTA‐6135 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the active agent L. paracasei ATCC PTA‐6135 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, L. paracasei ATCC PTA‐6135 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. In the absence of data, no conclusion could be drawn on the eye irritation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of citronella oil obtained from the leaves of Cymbopogon nardus (L.) Rendle, when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that citronella oil from C. nardus is of low concern for long‐living and reproductive animals at the use levels in complete feed of 3.5 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 6 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 9.5 mg/kg for sheep/goats and horses, 2.0 mg/kg for cats and 10 mg/kg for dogs. For short‐living animals (species for fattening), the additive was considered of no concern at concentrations of 18 mg/kg in chickens for fattening, 24 mg/kg in turkeys for fattening, 20 mg/kg for piglets, pigs for fattening, veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, sheep/goats for meat production, horses for meat production and rabbits for meat production, and 30 mg/kg for salmonids. The conclusions were extrapolated to physiologically related minor species. For any other species, the additive is considered of low concern at 2.0 mg/kg complete feed. The use of citronella oil in animal feed is expected to be of no concern for the consumers and for the environment. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and as a dermal sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to methyleugenol may occur. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. Since the leaves of C. nardus and its preparations were recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri ATCC PTA‐2494 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel considers that any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri ATCC PTA‐6138 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) DSM 18112 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 18112 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and that any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum) ATCC 55943 as a technological additive (functional group: silage additive) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the Panel concluded that owing to the nature of the additive, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ATCC 55943 should be considered a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser, and any exposure through the skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel could not conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) produced by fermentation with a non‐genetically modified strain of Ensifer adhaerens (CGMCC 21299), when used as a nutritional additive for all animal species. No viable cells or DNA of the production strain were detected in the additive. Therefore, cyanocobalamin produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 21299 does not raise safety concerns as regards to the production strain. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed concluded that cyanocobalamin produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 21299 is considered safe for all animal species, for the consumers and the environment. Due to the presence of nickel, the additive is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Inhalation and dermal exposure are considered a risk. Due to the lack of data, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be an eye irritant. Cyanocobalamin produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 21299 is effective in meeting animal's nutritional requirements when administered via feed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of l‐isoleucine produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum CGMCC 20437 as a nutritional feed additive for use in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The production strain is non‐genetically modified, qualifies for the QPS approach to safety assessment when used for production purposes, is susceptible to the relevant antibiotics and contains no antimicrobial resistance genes of concern. No viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final product. The additive does not give rise to any safety concern regarding the production strain. l‐Isoleucine produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum CGMCC 20437 is considered safe for the target species, the consumer and the environment. Regarding the use in water, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) reiterates its concerns over the safety for the target species of l‐isoleucine administered simultaneously via water for drinking and feed owing to the risk of nutritional imbalances and hygienic reasons. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to conclude on the potential of l‐isoleucine produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum CGMCC 20437 to be irritant to skin and/or eyes, or as a dermal sensitiser. Due to the high dusting potential, exposure by inhalation is likely. l‐Isoleucine produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum CGMCC 20437 is considered as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐isoleucine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐isoleucine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of cajuput oil obtained from fresh leaves of Melaleuca cajuputi Maton & Sm. ex R. Powell and Melaleuca leucadendra (L.) L., when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that cajuput oil is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 30 mg/kg for sows and dogs, 50 mg/kg for horses and ornamental fish, 40 mg/kg for salmon and 5 mg/kg for cats. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations were 18 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 26 mg/kg for laying hens, 23 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 37 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 31 mg/kg for piglets, 78 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 69 mg/kg for cattle for fattening and sheep/goats, 45 mg/kg for dairy cows and 28 mg/kg for rabbits. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive is safe at 5 mg/kg complete feed. The use of cajuput oil in water for drinking was considered safe provided that the total daily intake does not exceed the daily amount considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers and the environment were identified following the use of the additive up to the highest safe use level in feed. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since cajuput oil was recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Levilactobacillus brevis DSM 21982 as a technological feed additive, silage additive, for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Patent Blue V as a sensory feed additive for non‐food‐producing animals. The additive is already authorised for use with non‐food‐producing animals. The applicant has not provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude whether the additive remains safe for the target species due to the non‐compliance with the specifications and the lack of adequate data on the potential aneugenicity of the additive. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a dermal and eye irritant nor a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. Since the potential genotoxicity of the additive was not ruled out, the exposure to the additive of the unprotected users should be minimised. The Panel retains that the previously made conclusion on the efficacy remains valid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of l‐threonine produced by fermentation with Escherichia coli CGMCC 7.455 when used as a nutritional additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species and categories. The production strain is genetically modified. None of the introduced genetic modifications raised a safety concern. Viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final additive. Therefore, the final product does not give raise to any safety concern regarding the genetic modification of the production strain. The use of l‐threonine (≥ 98.5%) produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.455 to supplement feed is safe for the target species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) has concerns on the safety of the simultaneous oral administration of l‐threonine via water for drinking and feed due to possible amino acid imbalances and hygienic reasons. The use of l‐threonine produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.455 in animal nutrition raises no safety concerns to consumers of animal products and to the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to skin or eyes, or on its potential to be a dermal sensitiser. The endotoxin activity in the additive does not pose a risk for the user via inhalation. The additive l‐threonine is regarded as an effective source of the amino acid l‐threonine for all non‐ruminant species. In order to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminants, it should be protected from ruminal degradation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 14021, a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the Panel considers that any exposure through skin and respiratory tract is considered a risk. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritation potential of the additive due to the lack of data. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the selenised yeast (inactivated) Saccharomyces cerevisiae CCTCC M 2022402 (Plexomin® Se 3000, available in two forms: 'granules' and 'micro') as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. Based on a tolerance–efficacy trial, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at proposed conditions of use and this conclusion can be extrapolated to all animal species. In the absence of deposition data in all animal species and products, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the consumer. Plexomin® Se 3000 (granules) is dust‐free; therefore, the exposure through inhalation is unlikely. Plexomin® Se 3000 (micro) presents a risk by inhalation. Both forms of the additive (granules and micro) are considered as respiratory sensitisers. Due to the lack of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the dermal and eye irritation potential of Plexomin® Se 3000 (granules). Plexomin® Se 3000 (micro) is not irritant to the skin and the eyes. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of both forms of the additive to be dermal sensitisers. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The additive is an efficacious source of selenium in feedingstuffs for all animal species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of sodium bisulphate (SBS) as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species (category: technological additive; functional group: preservative), and for all terrestrial animal species other than cats, mink, pets and other non‐food‐producing animals (category: technological additive; functional group: acidity regulator). EFSA has also been asked to assess the new use of the product as an acidity regulator and flavouring compound in all pets and other non‐food‐producing animals except aquatic animals. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all terrestrial animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the proposed new use would not introduce risks not already considered in the previous assessment and therefore the same conclusions on all terrestrial animal species, consumers of products from animals fed the additive and the environment would apply. Regarding user safety, the additive is irritant to the skin, eyes and the respiratory tract, and should be considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need to assess the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. The Panel considers that the additive has the potential to be efficacious as an acidity regulator and sensory additive (flavouring compound) in feed for pet and non‐food‐producing animals (except aquatic animals). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for their use as food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety reached in the previous opinions for microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications apply to the microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Enterococcus lactis DSM 22502 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that E. lactis remains safe for all animal species, consumers and environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the user safety, the Panel concluded that the additive is not irritating to the skin or eyes. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the proposed modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the maximum inclusion level of a feed additive consisting of nonanoic acid for all pigs and poultry species. Nonanoic acid is currently authorised for use as a sensory additive (functional group: flavouring compounds) for all animal species at a recommended maximum content of 5 mg/kg complete feed. The applicant is requesting a modification of the authorisation to increase the recommended maximum content of the active substance from 5 to 100 mg/kg complete feed for all poultry and pig species. In support of the safety of the additive at the new proposed level, the applicant provided tolerance trials in the target species. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that nonanoic acid is safe for all growing poultry species and Suidae at 100 mg/kg feed. The Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the new proposed level (100 mg/kg complete feed) for laying hens, turkeys for breeding, minor poultry species for laying/breeding and reproductive Suidae. However, FEEDAP Panel considered that nonanoic acid is safe at 10 mg/kg complete feed in laying hens, turkeys for breeding, minor poultry species for laying/breeding and 20 mg/kg complete feed for reproductive Suidae. The use of the feed additive in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for the consumer and the environment. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin and eye irritant neither a dermal nor respiratory sensitiser. No further demonstration of efficacy is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of ethyl cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additive ethyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinions for ethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the ethyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of hydroxypropyl cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additive hydroxypropyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinion for hydroxypropyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for the food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessments reached in the previous opinions for hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of propyl gallate as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on a safe level of propyl gallate for cats and on the safety for the consumer. Based on the new data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that propyl gallate at a maximum concentration of 71 mg/kg complete feed is safe for cats. Propyl gallate is considered safe for the consumer when used in complete feed for all animal species at the concentrations considered safe for the target species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23689 as a technological additive, silage additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of the additive consisting of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 22501 as a technological feed additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not irritant to skin and eye, but owing to its proteinaceous nature it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of natrolite–phonolite obtained from volcanic rock from Kaiserstuhl as a technological additive (functional group: anticaking) for all animal species. According to the conventional risk assessment, due to the lack of adequate data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species under the proposed conditions of use. However, from the tolerance studies in cattle for fattening and weaned piglets, effects observed in animal performance and blood clinical biochemistry suggest adverse effects on the animals supplemented with the additive. Based on current knowledge, there is no indication of substantial absorption of the components of the additive and, therefore, of concern for the consumer. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin and eye irritant. The additive is considered a respiratory and dermal sensitiser. In the absence of suitable data, the presence of small/nanoparticles cannot be excluded. As no suitable data in line with the requirements of the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials were provided by the applicant, the potential risks associated with the presence of nanoparticles for the target species, the consumer and the user could not be assessed. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of zeolites (≥ 50%) obtained from Neapolitan Yellow Tufa as a technological additive (functional group: anticaking) for all animal species. The additive is specified to contain not less than 50% of zeolites, namely phillipsite, chabazite and analcime. Neapolitan Yellow Tufa originates from the volcanic activity of Campi Flegrei, Italy. According to the conventional risk assessment, due to a lack of adequate data, the safety of the additive for the target species cannot be established. Based on current knowledge, there is no indication of substantial absorption of the components of the additive and, therefore, of concern for the consumer. The additive poses a risk by inhalation. It is not irritant to the skin. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritancy and on the dermal and respiratory sensitisation potential of the additive. As no suitable data in line with the requirements of the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials were provided by the applicant, the potential risks associated with the presence of nanoparticles for the target species, the consumer and the user could not be assessed. The additive is safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for all animal species at 20,000 mg/kg complete feed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I‐4622 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: physiological condition stabilisers) for all insects. The active agent used in the additive is already authorised for use in all animal species as a technological additive, and as a zootechnical additive in all Suidae species for fattening and for breeding, other than sows, all avian species, all fish species and all crustaceans. The active agent has been identified as a strain of P. acidilactici and consequently meets the qualifications required by the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The use of the additive is considered safe for all insect species, consumers and the environment. The additive is considered non‐irritant to skin and eyes but a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn regarding its skin sensitisation potential. In the absence of adequate data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive as a physiological condition stabiliser for honeybees nor for all insect species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of zinc chloride hydroxide monohydrate as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species (3b609). The applicant reported changes in the production process and requested a change in the specification of the additive. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) confirms that the use of the additive under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species and the consumers. The use of the additive in animal nutrition at the proposed use levels for the terrestrial species and land‐based aquaculture systems is considered safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for marine sediment compartment, when it is used in sea cages. The additive is an eye irritant, but not irritant to the skin and not a skin sensitiser. The exposure through inhalation is likely, but in the absence of data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the risk of exposure by inhalation. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of folic acid as a nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation and the production process has not been modified. The FEEDAP Panel considers that there is no evidence to revise the conclusions reached in the previous assessment for the safety for the terrestrial species, consumers and for the environment. The use of folic acid in aquatic animal species to cover their nutritional needs is considered safe. However, the Panel is not in a position to set a maximum safe level for all fish and crustacean species. Considering the narrow margin between the requirement and the tolerated levels seen in some aquatic animal species, the FEEDAP Panel considers that supplementation should not exceed the requirements of the different aquatic animal species. The additive is neither a skin irritant nor a dermal sensitiser. The exposure through inhalation is likely. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential of folic acid to be harmful to the respiratory system and irritant to eyes. The Panel retains that the previously made conclusion on the efficacy remains valid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Levilactobacillus brevis (formerly Lactobacillus brevis) DSM 23231 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that evidence has been provided that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of authorisation. The Panel also concluded that L. brevis DSM 23231 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Based on the studies submitted regarding user safety, the preparation of the additive tested was shown not to be a skin or eye irritant. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of copper(II)‐betaine as a nutritional additive for all animal species and on the safety for the marine sediment when the additive is used in sea cages. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the risk to the marine sediment is acceptable when the additive is used in sea cages. The additional statistical analysis of the results of the efficacy study already assessed in the previous opinion did not allow the Panel to conclude on the efficacy of the additive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the mixture of Sepiolite and Kieselguhr (diatomaceous earth) (Anpro) as a technological feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. According to the conventional risk assessment, due to lack of adequate data, the safety of the additive Anpro for the target species cannot be established. Based on current knowledge, there is no indication of substantial absorption of the components of the additive and therefore no concern for the consumer. The additive poses a risk by inhalation. It is not irritant to the skin or eyes but should be considered as skin sensitiser. As no suitable data in line with the requirements of the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials were provided by the applicant, the potential risks associated with the presence of nanoparticles could not be assessed for the target species, the consumer and the user. The additive is safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for all terrestrial animal species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the application for renewal of orthophosphoric acid as a technological additive (functional group: preservatives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species provided that the optimal Ca:P ratio is maintained. Additionally, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that orthophosphoric acid remains safe for the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the user safety, orthophosphoric acid is corrosive to the skin and eyes and should be considered as hazardous to the respiratory tract. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LMG P‐21295, a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the skin and eye irritation potential of the additive. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]